Whenever I talk to people about how the gov works, they ALWAYS argue with me. Not about philisophical aspects, but rather the economic, financial and historical aspects. You know: the facts.

I tell them that the gov has no money of its own, so in order to give a welfare recipient $1, it has to take a dollar from someone else. There is no free lunch. The typical response I get to that is: well the welfare recipient needed it more than the tax payer. Yes and Karl Marx said: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, but the socialization/communization of America is another discussion.

I reply: but what will the welfare recipient do with the money he is given? What would have the tax payer done with the money he earned? The welfare recipient may very well spend it on booz, cigarettes, lottery tickets and drugs; welfare fraud is $1 billion/year. The tax payer would have spent it on rent, food and other things. He has every right to spend it on anything he wants. It's his money.

So is the welfare recipient better off? No, the welfare may very well be enabling the very habits that contributed to him being on welfare. Is the tax payer better off? No, because he now has less money with which to live. Is the baker better off? No, becasue the tax payer will spend one less dollar at his bakery now. Now mulitply that $1 by the hundreds of million taken from tax payers for welfare and it's not hard to see that the welfare state creates welfare dependents and penalizes productive people.

Here's where I usually get the "oh you think people should be dying in the streets". No I don't, that's why I am against welfare. It creates dependents who will not take personal responsibility for their lives and so they continue the same old habits that will eventually kill them. It's welfare that threatens them, not me.

More people got off welfare and back to work in the 1990's when Clinton reformed it than ever before. Nobody heard of people dying in the streets b/c they couldn't get welfare anymore.